Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Section 319 CrPC: Persons Named In FIR, But Not Chargesheeted Can Be Summoned Even If Stage Of Protest Petition Is Over [Rajesh V. State of Haryana] The Supreme Court observed that a trial court can summon under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, those persons named in FIR, but who were not charge-sheeted, even if the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition is over. Electronic Evidence: Failure To Produce Certificate U/s 65B Evidence Act Along With Chargesheet Not Fatal To Prosecution [State of Karnataka vs. M. R. Hiremath] Failure to produce a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act at the stage when the charge-sheet was filed is not fatal to the prosecution, the Supreme Court held. The bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta, on appeal filed by the state, observed that the High Court erred in concluding that the failure to produce a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act at the stage when the charge-sheet was filed was fatal to the prosecution. It said: Mere Pendency Of Civil Case Between Complainant And Accused Not A Ground To Quash Criminal Case [Md. Allauddin Khan vs. State of Bihar] The Supreme Court observed that mere pendency of a civil case between complainant and accused is not a reason to quash criminal case. Terming the High Court view 'erroneous', the bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari observed: "The High Court failed to see that mere pendency of a civil suit is not an answer to the question as to whether a case under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or not…" Payment Of Part Sale Consideration Or Stamp Duty Cannot Be Sole Criteria To Hold Transaction As Benami [Mangathai Ammal vs. Rajeswari] The Supreme Court observed that the payment of part sale consideration or stamp duty by another person cannot be the sole criteria to hold the sale/transaction as benami. Termination Of Arbitration Proceedings U/s 32 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act Cannot Be Recalled [Sai Babu vs. Clariya Steels Pvt. Ltd.] The Supreme Court observed that the termination of Arbitration proceedings by the Arbitrator under Section 32(2) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be recalled. Review/Recall/Modification Of Orders/Judgments Barred In Criminal Matters [Atul Shukla V. State of Madhya Pradesh] An application for review or modification could not have been entertained, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside a High Court order in a Section 482 CrPC petition. No New Appointments To Be Made From In-Service Candidates Against Bar Quota To District Judge Post [Dheeraj Mor V. High Court of Delhi] The Supreme Court ordered that no new appointments to the post of District Judges shall be made from in-service candidates against quota reserved for Bar 'now-onwards' The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha refused to pass any further interim orders either by permitting in service candidates to stake their claims in the examination or for being appointed as against the quota reserved for bar. Other significant orders and proceedings Observed that dismissal of consumer complaints on mere technical grounds, add to the burden of litigation and defeat the purpose of ensuring justice in the consumer fora.Dismissed a petition challenging Election Commission's order refusing to prepone the voting time during the holy month of Ramzaan to 5 AM, 5:30 or even 6 AM instead of 7 AM on account of the unprecedented heat wave prevailing in several parts of the country.Directed BJP Leader Priyanka Sharma arrested by West Bengal police for allegedly sharing a morphed photo of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on social media to be released immediately.Observed that cognizance of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act can be taken by the court even after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.Sought responses from the Centre and CBSE on a plea seeking ten per cent reservation for economically weaker sections in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET), 2019.Granting leave to directly appeal against Chief Judicial Magistrate's order, the Supreme Court noted that there are conflicting views by different High Courts with regard to the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI).In a relief to 20 trainee IAS and IPS officers who had challenged the Centre's cadre allocation process for the 2018 batch, the Supreme Court said they will be accommodated by increasing of one post in the state cadres of their preference this...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags